We carried out a review of the data available to us about Broughton House and College on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Broughton House and College, you can give feedback on this service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was registered for the support of up to five people and five people were using the service. The service was provided from one house over two floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were extremely well supported by an effective management team and staff group at the service. The staff worked in an open and transparent way, using their quality monitoring processes to provide excellent care for people. The communication and collaboration between people, relatives, staff and the supporting multidisciplinary team meant people received outstanding personalised care which had positive impacts on their daily lives. One relative said, “They are excellent at making sure families are involved.”
Staff had excellent knowledge of the people they supported. They used that knowledge to care for people in a positive and empowering way. People’s independence, social and life skills were enhanced by the knowledge and attitude of staff who supported them. People were actively encouraged to expand their horizons and develop in whatever way they could. All achievements were celebrated and shared with people’s families in an inclusive way.
We found a caring and empathetic staff group who enjoyed working with the people they supported. Relatives told us there was excellent communication from staff about all aspects of their family member’s care. Families were welcomed at the service and felt their relations were treated with care and respect by the staff. Our observations of the interactions between people and staff supported this. Relatives views on their family member’s care were used to provide personalised care, and they were encouraged and welcomed to take part in regular reviews of people’s care.
People’s nutritional needs were well managed, and their different dietary needs were met. People were well supported with all their health needs through established systems of care using the provider’s multidisciplinary health professional team, and the well-established links with the local healthcare team.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People lived in an environment that was regularly cleaned and maintained to meet their needs. They were supported by a staff group who received appropriate training to support them in their roles.
There were robust safeguarding systems in place which were used effectively by staff who showed an excellent knowledge of their roles in protecting the people in their care. The management team had robust processes in place to ensure learning from incidents and events to reduce future risk or reoccurrence. The risks to people’s safety were comprehensively and positively assessed to ensure people were both protected from harm and could enjoy a full range of life activities safely.
People were supported by a strong staff group who had been through a safe recruitment process, and who received regular monitoring and support from the management team.
People’s medicines were managed safely by a staff group who had received the appropriate training for their role.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The last rating for this service was Good (15 February 2018)
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about a possible safeguarding incident.
The service was provided in one contained unit over two floors.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People continued to be protected from the risk of abuse and felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities if they suspected abuse was happening. The manager shared information with the local authority when needed.
People received their medicines as prescribed and the management of medicines was safe. They lived in a clean environment and were protected from the risk of infection.
People continued to be supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had received adequate training for their role.
People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition. Specialist diets were provided if needed. Referrals were made to health care professionals when needed. The premises were well maintained and had been adapted to meet the needs of the people who lived there.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.
People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to contribute to the planning of their care. People were treated in a caring and respectful manner and staff delivered support in a relaxed and considerate way.
People received individualised person centred care from staff who had a good understanding of their needs. They were supported to take part in a range of social activities of their choice.
People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to be involved in decisions and systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People also felt they could report any concerns to the management team and felt they would be taken seriously.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Broughton House and College specialises in the care of people who have a learning disability. Number 12 High street provides accommodation for up to 5 people who require personal acre and support. On the day of our inspection there were five people living at the home on a permanent basis.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are registered persons. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
On the day of our inspection we found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people and staff knew how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were in place.
There were sufficient staff available to support people, this was usually on a one to one basis. A recruitment process was in place.
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Medicine administration records (MAR) were completed fully.
The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). If the location is a care home Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find. We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as an occupational therapist and GP.
Staff were kind and sensitive to people when they were providing support. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. People had access to leisure activities and excursions to local facilities. People had their privacy and dignity considered. Staff were aware of people’s need for privacy and dignity.
People were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks during the day and had choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.
Staff were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs. We saw that people were involved in making decisions about their care and how their day was managed. Staff felt able to raise concerns and issues with the registered manager. People were encouraged to raise issues both formally and informally.
The provider had a complaints policy in place and used a variety of methods to gain people's views about the service.
Audits were carried out on a regular basis and action put in place to address any concerns and issues.
We observed care and saw staff were responsive to people and interacted with them positively. People told us the staff were good and looked after them well.
People told us the food was good and we saw people were involved in planning and cooking.
When we spoke with staff they told us they had received training to enable them to provide safe and appropriate care to people.
Overall we observed that people were supported by skilled and experienced staff who understood their roles and responsibilities.We saw people were treated with dignity and respect and supported to make decisions about their care.
We spoke to one person during our visit. They told us they liked living at the home.
They told us they did activities such as swimming and going to the pub.
We asked them if they liked the food and they said it was good.